Barb v. Clipper

Filing 26

Memorandum Opinion and Order that Barb's objection is OVERRULED re 25 Objection filed by Danny Barb, and the Magistrate Judge's contested rulings are ADOPTED 24 Objection filed by Danny Barb. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 10/5/2011. (E,P) Modified text on 10/5/2011 (E,P).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DANNY BARB,
Petitioner,
vs.
KIMBERLY CLIPPER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11 CV 563
Judge Dan Aaron Polster
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Before the Court in this matter is a document entitled “Appeal and Objection to
Magistrate Order.” (Doc #: 25.) Therein, habeas petitioner Danny Barb objects to Magistrate
Judge McHargh’s rulings denying Barb’s various motions to expand the record (Doc ##: 6, 8,
22), Barb’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc #: 10), and motion for discovery (Doc #: 7).
(Doc #: 24.) Barb does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling denying his motion to appoint
counsel.
Petitioner’s underlying motions involve non-dispositive matters. As such, Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a) applies. Under Rule 72(a), “the district judge in the case must consider timely objections
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” The
Court has reviewed the underlying motions, the Magistrate Judge’s rulings, Barb’s timely
objection and the record and finds that Barb has failed to show that any part of the Magistrate
Judge’s rulings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, Barb’s objection (Doc #: 25) is OVERRULED, and the Magistrate Judge’s
contested rulings (Doc #: 24) are ADOPTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Dan A. Polster October 5, 2011
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge

-2-